Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

I imagine you wipe your butt more often than you engage in shoot outs.

I do. Again, you seem to have this preconceived notion that because I carry extra of something, I'm expecting a shootout. I'm not. I expecting to be able to have plenty of my tool to get the job done, and still have a few left over, God forbid I need it.

Originally Posted by tsig

Why do you think this is a good analogy, is it because it equates killing someone with wiping your butt?

Nope. It's about being prepared. I'm prepared to defend myself, or the store clerk, or the bank teller, from harm.

Then you will be better off not reading my posts. Because I am saying exactly what I believe. As I see it the problem is too many guns so any suggestion to add more to it will only make the problem worse.

I do not like guns. I do not like people that own guns. I never will.

They continue to act obstinately about what the problem clearly is: there are too many guns in this country readily available to too many people. No, they won't see that obvious truth because they would rather pout and cry about their really cool pop-pop-bang toys maybe getting taken away. Then what will they have as a hobby? They don't care that having so many of their precious pop-pop-bang toys around is killing our children! They want their toys damnit! Wah wah.

I truly loathe such people. And if you don't like it then stop reading what I write in these threads. But know this. People like me are coming for your guns. So get paranoid if you want. Your kind won't have all the political power forever. We will find a way to win and preserve the chance for our society to make it to the future. I want to have kids one day. And our gun crazy society as it exists right now is no place for children it seems.

That. Will. Change.

Maybe not right now. But someday. You'll lose those precious toys of yours and society will be made safe again.

It's just a matter of time.

Travis, I respect your opinion, and your right to voice it, even if I disagree with it.

However, your belief is based on....I dunno honestly. Honest question: Why do you hate guns and gun enthusiasts like myself?

I know that my guns will never hurt someone that didn't need a hurting. I treat them the way that they deserve to be treated. I'm also a competition shooter. I shoot upwards of 100,000 rounds a year, and have never been a threat to anyone's kids. The vast majority of gun owners are the same.

It's the few ignorant types that give us all a bad name.

Now, why would you want to take guns away from the responsible gun owners, who've done nothing to harm anyone? Do you want to take alcohol away from everyone too because a small minority of people drive drunk a kill people? I'd be willing to bet that you don't, right?

It is only "your right" as long as your society agrees that it is your right. Should your society decide that it is no longer a right, and should rather be a privilege for those few who can show that they can indeed take on the responsibilities of being granted that privilege, then you will no longer have such a "right" to violate.

I understand that completely. However, the likelihood of that happening, is slim.

I'm afraid that ben m got it right. You are discussing things that won't happen, and that's just a wee bit scary.

Really? Carjackings while stopped at a stop light, don't happen?

Oh, and a six shooter most likely would, but me personally, I'm not a big fan of revolvers, nor do I like the idea of being limited to 6 rounds and a very long reload time. So yes, a SA is a better choice.

Carjackings certainly happen. However, carjackings where you need a semi-auto to protect yourself don't happen. The carjackers for the most part would flee at the sight of any gun. If they didn't, it would be over before either side fired six shots. In the scenario you described, either you or they would be dead before you could run out of your six bullets.

Quote:

Oh, and a six shooter most likely would, but me personally, I'm not a big fan of revolvers, nor do I like the idea of being limited to 6 rounds and a very long reload time. So yes, a SA is a better choice.

I agree that if I were in that situation, I would be perfectly happy with a high capacity clip and I would fire lots of bullets very fast, assuming of course I managed to get to my gun before the carjackers shot me. You described having a gun in your face, which makes it somewhat unlikely they would allow me the time required to open my glove compartment.

However, regardless of my wishes, the legislators who make the laws have to consider not just my wishes, but the best interest of public safety. Most of them would not feel safer knowing that if a carjacker appeared, I would start spraying lead as quickly as possible. It turns out bad things can happen in that situation.

Does everyone understand now why rational conversations about guns is impossible? Just read this crap. Wow.

Quad, maybe you are unable to have a rational conversation about guns, but that doesn't mean that the rest of us cannot.

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Travis, I respect your opinion, and your right to voice it, even if I disagree with it.

However, your belief is based on....I dunno honestly. Honest question: Why do you hate guns and gun enthusiasts like myself?

I know that my guns will never hurt someone that didn't need a hurting. I treat them the way that they deserve to be treated. I'm also a competition shooter. I shoot upwards of 100,000 rounds a year, and have never been a threat to anyone's kids. The vast majority of gun owners are the same.

It's the few ignorant types that give us all a bad name.

Now, why would you want to take guns away from the responsible gun owners, who've done nothing to harm anyone? Do you want to take alcohol away from everyone too because a small minority of people drive drunk a kill people? I'd be willing to bet that you don't, right?

Carjackings certainly happen. However, carjackings where you need a semi-auto to protect yourself don't happen.

Every carjacking, IMO, fall into that category. In fact, in Florida, it does.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

The carjackers for the most part would flee at the sight of any gun.

Good, that means I don't have to fire my weapon. I personally don't want to have to fire my gun and take another person's life. But, if need be I will.

Oh, and I save myself about 20 bucks or so, as those hollow point Federal's that I have are expensive as hell!!

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

If they didn't, it would be over before either side fired six shots. In the scenario you described, either you or they would be dead before you could run out of your six bullets.

I'd hope that it would be them. However, if it's not, I hope that I die with an empty gun.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I agree that if I were in that situation, I would be perfectly happy with a high capacity clip and I would fire lots of bullets very fast, assuming of course I managed to get to my gun before the carjackers shot me. You described having a gun in your face, which makes it somewhat unlikely they would allow me the time required to open my glove compartment.

Hence why I keep mine either on my hip, or tucked in between the seats of my car.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

However, regardless of my wishes, the legislators who make the laws have to consider not just my wishes, but the best interest of public safety. Most of them would not feel safer knowing that if a carjacker appeared, I would start spraying lead as quickly as possible. It turns out bad things can happen in that situation.

Agreed, bad things could happen. Bad things can happen in a lot of self defense scenarios. However, if my life is in direct peril, I'm almost certainly going to fire my weapon.

The issue wasn't one of Passive Security failing, it was one of the passive security simply wasn't up to the job because it wasn't designed to do it. They did not have blast proof windows, automatically locking doors, a "no-man's land between the outer and inner levels of security. Simply putting locks on the doors and saying "job done" isn't enough. Look at what the Federal Govt did to its buildings after Oklahoma City, they didn't just slap on some fire resistant paint and say, she'll be right. With doors and windows designed to withstand a barrage for 2-3 minutes, he would never have reached the children and staff before the police arrived.

With putting armed people into the schools, first off you turn them into scary places. Secondly, you need to keep those people trained, thirdly, if there is an attack, it becomes a shootout and how many people get caught in the cross fire? You also put those people in danger, and should the attacker prove to be better at picking them off than they are at getting the shooter, then you hand a whole lot more guns to your killer.

Locate, Isolate, Contain. That is the way to do it. Use security cameras and outer perimmeter security guards to locate. Once a threat is identified and located and being monitored, isolate them from the potential victims, lock the place down with doors and windows they can't just shoot and kick their way through in a hurry. Finally, contain. Use the same security that isolates the potential victims from the shooter, to contain the shooter and prevent his easy passage until police arrive. No fuss, no mess, no shoot outs at the O.K. Elementary School.

Lexan and deadbolts for sure! An extended vestibule will also not break the district, and it really wouldn't have to look like Ft Knox.

__________________The hairless monkey cringes, cries out against the storm.
Religion is born.

No. But we should think skeptically about what measures we take, and limit our actions to those that may actually help.

And besides the monetary cost, there's the psychological strain of making children feel like they are in a war zone. They spend better than half of their waking hours at school - the more security measures around them, the more sense of danger they'll feel.

My kids are in 1st grade and Kindergarten. I would be happy to see security measures that keep them safer. But focusing on school security is just not going to do much to protect them from something like Newtown.

If the only changes we make focus on stopping someone after they get to a school, weapons in hand (or planted in the building, like the Bath massacre), it's too late. Best case scenario is to minimize the killing. The killer will have spent months planning this, and knows what your security measures are, and has at least got some ideas about how to get around them.

I'd rather see what we can do before things get to the point where a killer is at the school.

How about this: every gun owner takes full responsibility for any crimes committed with the use of their guns. Someone stole your gun? You're still responsible; you should have had it more secure. You didn't expect your idiot kid to take it to school? Too bad, you left it where he could get it, so you are responsible. Maybe change the attitudes and culture of gun owners. All the focus from the NRA is on rights -- maybe they can start to focus on responsibility too.

It doesn't have to look like a jail, and I am unsure if you are aware that one can be sued for anything to include contributing to harm, the criminal sanctions you might have trouble with, but civil liability is the wild west.
ETA: this is also covered in a CCW class, hunters safety class, and inumerous publications from the EVIL NRA.( Liability)

__________________The hairless monkey cringes, cries out against the storm.
Religion is born.

shows 31,672 firearms deaths in 2010. And 31,347 in 2009. And so on. Every goddamn year. Yeah, sure, I'm glad an occasional diner-robbery gets averted by a vigilante. Saves a handful of people a year, I don't doubt it. Too bad about the 31,000-victim side effect.

Your chances of finding yourself in a life or death shoot out with one or more armed individuals seems statistically small to me.

It is extremely low, but it is not zero. I decided a long time ago that I would feel so stupid if I was killed that way without a chance of defending myself that I just could not take that chance......... I added a couple of things to that when I heard about the two Brit officers watching an IRA funeral who were both armed . Their car was surrounded by IRA slime, they were pulled out of the car and murdered. If in that situation (and not knowing the bullet capacity of the Brit's weapons), mine would be empty and there would be dead or dying POS's by the time I died. I have no idea why they did not fire - and I really do not care.

__________________There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

It did not. Please go back a read it. It describes a cashier being pistol whipped.

Thanks for your concern for my aim. It's quite good. As is my use of a keyboard. Perhaps you'll go back and read again....

Here is the post to which you were responding:

Originally Posted by tsig

Your chances of finding yourself in a life or death shoot out with one or more armed individuals seems statistically small to me.

You invented a scenario of two thugs pistol whipping a cashier in response to that.

If you are saying that your response was a total non sequitur, then it's quite hard to figure out the whole point.

I did notice that you said "it doesn't have to be a shoot out" in describing the situation, but if they don't return fire with their weapons, I'm having a hard time understanding why you need 15 bullets.

I never suggested that a solution would be cheap, I did say that it would be cheaper in the long run than some of the other ideas, including training and keeping up the continual training of staff to carry and use guns. I'd note that the US Federal Government quite obviously think that their federal workers are worth the expense of upgrading all the federal buildings in the US, are their kids not worth the same?

I don't think you're really grasping the scale of the problem. Schools are huge, and there are a butt-load of them. Effective security upgrades to every school would not just be "not cheap" it would be phenomenally expensive. It would bankrupt the US government.

The comparison with Federal buildings isn't meaningful. There are about ten times as many public schools in the US as there are Federal Buildings, and schools are on average many times larger than Federal Buildings.

Federal Buildings do not have universal or consistent security. Under Federal Building Security measures, buildings are ranked with five tiers, based on the vulnerability of the building, the number of workers present, and the importance of the function it serves. Smaller, less vulnerable facilities have less security, larger, more vulnerable and more important facilities have greater security. As example, Level I buildings (the majority of Federal Buildings) require only security locks on doors, an intercom, and external automatic lighting.

It's telling that, 17 years after the Oklahoma City Bombing (when the cohesive security system was first developed) the Federal Protection Service is struggling to even maintain inspection of all Federal buildings, let alone actually ensure that they're upgraded to spec.

Under these grades, virtually every public school in the US would rank as a Level III or IV building (Level V is reserved for sites requiring special tailored security such as the Pentagon and Nuclear Power Stations) due to the high number of people on site and the large size. Amongst Federal Buildings, Level IV represents a very small percentage of total buildings; sites like FBI and ATF buildings. Evenso, despite improved security, GAO investigations have found appalling lapses at even Level IV Federal Buildings.

The DOJ, who conducted the original study that drew up the security guidelines, estimated the cost to upgrade a Level IV building to necessary security levels, if it had no security before hand (which would be the vast majority of schools) to be about $3 million.

To give you an idea, an entry point x-ray and magnetic scanning setup costs about $45,000 per entry point. Even if you were to limit entry to a single point in all public schools (not even remotely practical), that's already a bill of $4 billion. Then you've got to provide a trained security guard to operate the screening point, and keep them current on that training. That's another $4 billion every year. Except of course many schools are going to require multiple check-points.

The security bill rapidly becomes unachievable due to the enormous size and enormous number of public schools in the US.

It is extremely low, but it is not zero. I decided a long time ago that I would feel so stupid if I was killed that way without a chance of defending myself that I just could not take that chance......... I added a couple of things to that when I heard about the two Brit officers watching an IRA funeral who were both armed . Their car was surrounded by IRA slime, they were pulled out of the car and murdered. If in that situation (and not knowing the bullet capacity of the Brit's weapons), mine would be empty and there would be dead or dying POS's by the time I died. I have no idea why they did not fire - and I really do not care.

Only one of them was armed and he did fire his weapon. He was still brutally beaten, stripped, and ultimately executed by the IRA. The entire event was captured on video, and is on YouTube.

Since it's so unlikely to be the victim of gun violence, why are you so concerned about the proliferation of guns? Which is it, constant shooting and gun violence or statistically improbable? Useless precaution or constant menace? Why is your stance on this so inconsistent?

It is the pro guns inconsistent position that is being described. High crime, want a gun, low crime want a gun, anything, want a gun. So many gun owners insist they want one even if the the need is so low that they come over as having a useless precaution for a supposed constant menace.

The fact that so many Americans want guns they do not need created the massive market which means the USA has been flooded with guns. That flood of guns means criminals have easily got hold of them as well and there are too many gun owners not responsible enough to have a gun, so there are too many accidents, suicides and inappropriate shootings in supposed self defence.

Hence the high death rate. Then look at the supposed effectiveness of guns and their proliferation.

The rest of your ignorant post is snipped, because it's based on a flawed premise, and downright dumb. (Not you, the post)

That shows criminals are not deterred from crime by the prospect the person they are attacking is armed. What then results are short shoot outs endangering all the people present. In societies with few guns, like the UK such crimes as described are very very rare and if tried tend to be with knives and very very few people die.

It matters not one bit that many American gun owners are safe and responsible when they are not shooting at people.

1 - The safe part goes when they pull out their guns and innocents are killed or criminals are killed when their crime does not warrant summary execution by a passer-by.

2 - Then it is so true that many, many irresponsible people have spoiled the party for the responsible ones. The criminals, the cops who leave their gun in their car with their kids, the people who do not secure their guns properly at home and they get stolen, used in school shootings or for relatives to kill themselves. Then the gun owners who sell guns on to irresponsible people who should never have a gun in the first place.

I know it is not fair on the truly responsible gun owners, but unless they accept the overall problem is greater than their rights under the Second Amendment, then nothing will change and so they also become responsible for the failed US gun culture by resisting changes that will save hundreds of thousands of lives.

It is the pro guns inconsistent position that is being described. High crime, want a gun, low crime want a gun, anything, want a gun. So many gun owners insist they want one even if the the need is so low that they come over as having a useless precaution for a supposed constant menace.

The fact that so many Americans want guns they do not need created the massive market which means the USA has been flooded with guns. That flood of guns means criminals have easily got hold of them as well and there are too many gun owners not responsible enough to have a gun, so there are too many accidents, suicides and inappropriate shootings in supposed self defence.

Hence the high death rate. Then look at the supposed effectiveness of guns and their proliferation.

That shows criminals are not deterred from crime by the prospect the person they are attacking is armed. What then results are short shoot outs endangering all the people present. In societies with few guns, like the UK such crimes as described are very very rare and if tried tend to be with knives and very very few people die.

It matters not one bit that many American gun owners are safe and responsible when they are not shooting at people.

1 - The safe part goes when they pull out their guns and innocents are killed or criminals are killed when their crime does not warrant summary execution by a passer-by.

2 - Then it is so true that many, many irresponsible people have spoiled the party for the responsible ones. The criminals, the cops who leave their gun in their car with their kids, the people who do not secure their guns properly at home and they get stolen, used in school shootings or for relatives to kill themselves. Then the gun owners who sell guns on to irresponsible people who should never have a gun in the first place.

I know it is not fair on the truly responsible gun owners, but unless they accept the overall problem is greater than their rights under the Second Amendment, then nothing will change and so they also become responsible for the failed US gun culture by resisting changes that will save hundreds of thousands of lives.

Agreed.

There does seem to be a rampant culture of being afriad of your own shadow in the US.

And I think the best way to restrict guns is to tax them heavily based on an escalator, single action lowest semis atuos, autos and assualt guns in the high brackets and the same escalator for the gun permits, with the money raised ploughed into a National health service.

It is extremely low, but it is not zero. I decided a long time ago that I would feel so stupid if I was killed that way without a chance of defending myself that I just could not take that chance......... I added a couple of things to that when I heard about the two Brit officers watching an IRA funeral who were both armed . Their car was surrounded by IRA slime, they were pulled out of the car and murdered. If in that situation (and not knowing the bullet capacity of the Brit's weapons), mine would be empty and there would be dead or dying POS's by the time I died. I have no idea why they did not fire - and I really do not care.

There's also a chance you may be killed by lightning, do you wear a lightning rod on your head?

That shows criminals are not deterred from crime by the prospect the person they are attacking is armed. What then results are short shoot outs endangering all the people present. In societies with few guns, like the UK such crimes as described are very very rare and if tried tend to be with knives and very very few people die.

It matters not one bit that many American gun owners are safe and responsible when they are not shooting at people.

1 - The safe part goes when they pull out their guns and innocents are killed or criminals are killed when their crime does not warrant summary execution by a passer-by.

None of the linked stories involve a "shoot out". In none of the linked stories did more than one person discharge a weapon.

But even in one of those stories, your point number 1 is illustrated fairly well. I'm fine with the man from Ocala shooting the robbers. (I've been an armed robbery hostage myself. It's no fun, and I would have been fine if those guys had been shot.) However, on the video you can see that as the men are fleeing, and have left the business they were trying to rob, the man fires one more shot at one of the men who had tripped and fallen. It appears to have missed, which means it must have hit the sidewalk, which means it ricocheted and hit.........something. We know that something wasn't a person, or it would be in the story, but it certainly could have been.

It's one more way of showing why the OP "solution" is just a bad idea. Sure, having lots of guns in schools would deter some school shootings, and would lower the body count in others, but there are lots of ways gunfire can go wrong, and with that many guns in use, it will. I'm willing to trust that my son's school will not be the next Columbine. The odds are very strongly in my favor. I'm not willing to trust that his teacher won't be the next idiot who shoots the wrong person by accident. That is a whole lot more likely than the idea that he will save my kid's life by expert use of a firearm.

There does seem to be a rampant culture of being afriad of your own shadow in the US.

I really don't think that's fair and it will enflame the discussion further. I would say that there is an accute perception of threat/risk and strong perception that it should be meeting it is a personal responsibility rather than a group one for the society.

There's also seems to be implied by some that being heavily armed to defend oneself is brave, whereas accepting that one will be disarmed and will delegate dealing with specific problems to specifically delegated people for what is perceived to be the common good is cowardly despite the fact that they would simultaneously argue that this is the more dangerous course.

My views so far about fear driving a lot of people to want to own a weapon have been based on 3 nights on conversatison via skype with NRA members I have jsut let them talk and sat and listend, so yes its purely subjective on my part and a personal ipression on my part, but what has come through loud and clear from the 7 conversatiosn so far is they feel they have to protect themselves from something its different for each person, but the fear strand remains.

In no way is this an objective measure ans I will not claim it as such, but at least I am listening to them.

Now, why would you want to take guns away from the responsible gun owners, who've done nothing to harm anyone? Do you want to take alcohol away from everyone too because a small minority of people drive drunk a kill people? I'd be willing to bet that you don't, right?
So why the gun owners?[/quote]

An explanation from someone else as to what drives this kind of thinking you are trying to understand.

Even if a gun is purchased by a "responsible" gun owner and is never stolen or used for any undesirable purpose, this still arguably represents a danger to others and a danger to the owner themselves. The legal demand drives the production of guns that would otherwise not be produced. Whether those guns are diverted pre-sale or post-sale from the set of "responsible" individuals, however numerous and however you want to define them, they still end up arming people that to one extent or another do not fall into that set. The same mentality that makes someone want to arm themselves in protection of their home and others can be argued to drive a desire for someone committing a crime to want to arm themselves.

You'll notice that these factors don't translate well to the analogy of alcohol. That analogy highlights the wrong aspect of the situation for someone approaching the issue with a different set of concerns than yourself.

And I think the best way to restrict guns is to tax them heavily based on an escalator, single action lowest semis atuos, autos and assualt guns in the high brackets and the same escalator for the gun permits, with the money raised ploughed into a National health service.

So you'd tax 'assault guns' more than 'autos'?

__________________Quantum physics means that anything can happen at anytime and for no reason. Also, eat plenty of oatmeal, and animals never had a war! - Deepak Chopra

I don't think you're really grasping the scale of the problem. Schools are huge, and there are a butt-load of them. Effective security upgrades to every school would not just be "not cheap" it would be phenomenally expensive. It would bankrupt the US government.

The comparison with Federal buildings isn't meaningful. There are about ten times as many public schools in the US as there are Federal Buildings, and schools are on average many times larger than Federal Buildings.

Federal Buildings do not have universal or consistent security. Under Federal Building Security measures, buildings are ranked with five tiers, based on the vulnerability of the building, the number of workers present, and the importance of the function it serves. Smaller, less vulnerable facilities have less security, larger, more vulnerable and more important facilities have greater security. As example, Level I buildings (the majority of Federal Buildings) require only security locks on doors, an intercom, and external automatic lighting.

It's telling that, 17 years after the Oklahoma City Bombing (when the cohesive security system was first developed) the Federal Protection Service is struggling to even maintain inspection of all Federal buildings, let alone actually ensure that they're upgraded to spec.

Under these grades, virtually every public school in the US would rank as a Level III or IV building (Level V is reserved for sites requiring special tailored security such as the Pentagon and Nuclear Power Stations) due to the high number of people on site and the large size. Amongst Federal Buildings, Level IV represents a very small percentage of total buildings; sites like FBI and ATF buildings. Evenso, despite improved security, GAO investigations have found appalling lapses at even Level IV Federal Buildings.

The DOJ, who conducted the original study that drew up the security guidelines, estimated the cost to upgrade a Level IV building to necessary security levels, if it had no security before hand (which would be the vast majority of schools) to be about $3 million.

To give you an idea, an entry point x-ray and magnetic scanning setup costs about $45,000 per entry point. Even if you were to limit entry to a single point in all public schools (not even remotely practical), that's already a bill of $4 billion. Then you've got to provide a trained security guard to operate the screening point, and keep them current on that training. That's another $4 billion every year. Except of course many schools are going to require multiple check-points.

The security bill rapidly becomes unachievable due to the enormous size and enormous number of public schools in the US.

Even level one is better than nothing, also school funding, like politics, is local.

__________________The hairless monkey cringes, cries out against the storm.
Religion is born.

An explanation from someone else as to what drives this kind of thinking you are trying to understand.

Even if a gun is purchased by a "responsible" gun owner and is never stolen or used for any undesirable purpose, this still arguably represents a danger to others and a danger to the owner themselves. The legal demand drives the production of guns that would otherwise not be produced. Whether those guns are diverted pre-sale or post-sale from the set of "responsible" individuals, however numerous and however you want to define them, they still end up arming people that to one extent or another do not fall into that set. The same mentality that makes someone want to arm themselves in protection of their home and others can be argued to drive a desire for someone committing a crime to want to arm themselves.

Risk management where no controls can ever be acceptable? No operational controls(Safety training), no engineering controls(locks, safes, physical security), no regulatory controls(the laws currently on the books) can ever satisfy your alleged danger to the planet? The irrational fear is yours. Further you posit that because an honest citizen has a gun it drives a CRIMINAL to get one, like they have a right to steal unmolested? Seriously??? And one gets to live hoping their attacker only feels like beating them half to death today? In America one has the right to be secure in their environment, the police have no responsibilities to protect an individual. The world you envision has the weak at the mercy of the strong, hoping that when the bullies come to take what is not theirs they are left alive to get more stuff for them. Absurd.

__________________The hairless monkey cringes, cries out against the storm.
Religion is born.

It is the pro guns inconsistent position that is being described. High crime, want a gun, low crime want a gun, anything, want a gun. So many gun owners insist they want one even if the the need is so low that they come over as having a useless precaution for a supposed constant menace.

The fact that so many Americans want guns they do not need created the massive market which means the USA has been flooded with guns. That flood of guns means criminals have easily got hold of them as well and there are too many gun owners not responsible enough to have a gun, so there are too many accidents, suicides and inappropriate shootings in supposed self defence.

Hence the high death rate. Then look at the supposed effectiveness of guns and their proliferation.

That shows criminals are not deterred from crime by the prospect the person they are attacking is armed. What then results are short shoot outs endangering all the people present. In societies with few guns, like the UK such crimes as described are very very rare and if tried tend to be with knives and very very few people die.

It matters not one bit that many American gun owners are safe and responsible when they are not shooting at people.

1 - The safe part goes when they pull out their guns and innocents are killed or criminals are killed when their crime does not warrant summary execution by a passer-by.

2 - Then it is so true that many, many irresponsible people have spoiled the party for the responsible ones. The criminals, the cops who leave their gun in their car with their kids, the people who do not secure their guns properly at home and they get stolen, used in school shootings or for relatives to kill themselves. Then the gun owners who sell guns on to irresponsible people who should never have a gun in the first place.

I know it is not fair on the truly responsible gun owners, but unless they accept the overall problem is greater than their rights under the Second Amendment, then nothing will change and so they also become responsible for the failed US gun culture by resisting changes that will save hundreds of thousands of lives.

Actually states which have enacted CCW have had inconvenient drops in crime. Speaking of which you seem to support the idea that one has a right to criminal activity. And no, the overall problem is not greater than the second amendment, and I reject both your assignment of blame and your accusation of murder.

__________________The hairless monkey cringes, cries out against the storm.
Religion is born.